Re: A way forward

John Daggett wrote:

> My only concern with .webfont was that font vendors were
> endorsing .webfont because it appeared to have root strings but the
> latest version makes it clear that it doesn't.

There's still a lot of support for the .webfont idea among font makers 
and vendors, despite the clarification on root strings. I would be 
willing to clarify that further, explaining the implications of the 
proposed spec in terms that everyone can understand, to make sure that 
everyone still likes the idea. Mind you, if they don't like the idea, 
then EOT Lite is probably the next stop.

[I fully expect customer URL info to be rolled into private font tables 
by many font makers, for ease of tracking and customer account 
management, regardless of font format. It isn't something that puts any 
obligation on browsers.]

I believe a significant number of font makers/vendors would also license 
for EOT or EOT Lite. We want to have a single interoperable format 
because it makes our job a lot easier: we only recently escaped from 
mastering multiple incompatible font formats for different platforms 
(Win Type 1, Mac Type 1, Win TTF, etc.) and we're really not keen on the 
idea of going back to that kind of situation for web fonts.


Received on Friday, 24 July 2009 03:30:18 UTC